Welcome to HVAC-Talk.com, a non-DIY site and the ultimate Source for HVAC Information & Knowledge Sharing for the industry professional! Here you can join over 150,000 HVAC Professionals & enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to HVAC/R. You are currently viewing as a NON-REGISTERED guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register; for a free account. As a registered Guest you will be able to:

Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from nearly 3 million posts.

There are many possibilities. Syria might have been the destination. Didn't some Iraqi pilots and planes flee there early on? Hell they might be in a hole in the ground for all we know.

There is also this ironic and darkly amusing possibility. When one of Iraq's top scientists was captured, if you'll remember, he claimed that Saddam never supported them with proper funds so when he asked for progress reports they'd basically trump something up to trick him in to believing all was well.

Not sure how much we can beleive of that though. Can't deflect forever.

I wouldn't trust Putin necessarily, but if three of the top intel agencies in the world believe a thing then it's hard to believe its completely baseless.

Bottom line; we went with that justification and found nothing. Not good no matter what one believes.

When you put a large fire inside an extremely tall skyscraper, you have "stack effect", which means the entire building becomes a chimney. Now, chimney draft is a function of the temperature difference btw flue gases and outside, and the height of the flue. In this case, you have an incredible draft sucking up this, the world's tallest chimney making the fires into blast furnaces. It doesn't matter what the fuel is, when fanned by a strong breeze, you can drive temps way up. Take the lowly blacksmith's forge. You take coke, coal or wood burning at un-fanned temps. of about 900-1,200F. Fan those flames with a forge and you can actually melt steel (2,500+F). Now, if you read the internet, it is absolutely flooded with dozens of engineers and 'experts' quoting maxmium flame temps for jet fuel in open air from ~1,200-1,900F give or take a few degrees, then some anti-conspiracy types quoting temps between 2,700-6,750F. A lot depends on free air vs. compressed air burn in a jet engine. What I have not read anywhere are two key points: one, the stack effect as I noted above and B, the building acted like an oven to contain the heat driving temps. up. Now, once other combustibles in the building ignited such as furnishings, furniture, clothing, plastic wiring insulation, you have an added fuel load but you also drive up the heat release rate of all fuels burning. Now, ignite some metals and you have even more heat being released into the cauldron but contained within it like a crucible. I can take a propane torch and heat a copper pipe for quit some time without melting the copper. Cut off a section of 1/2" copper, put it in a crucible and heat it with that same torch and you can melt the copper tubing. It's magic! No, it is focusing the heat back upon itself. BTW, was this fire dept. captain a metalurgist and did he conduct experients on the molten metal he encountered? How did he know it wasn't a lot of aluminum, which melts around 1,220F depending upon the alloy? How about the babbit metal in bearings in elevator hoists and motors? Who knows what all was up there? Go fish... Instead of tilting at windmills, why don't you paranoid types concern yourself with the creeps running the country trying to hand it over to worse creeps who want to kill us?

When you put a large fire inside an extremely tall skyscraper, you have "stack effect", which means the entire building becomes a chimney. Now, chimney draft is a function of the temperature difference btw flue gases and outside, and the height of the flue. In this case, you have an incredible draft sucking up this, the world's tallest chimney making the fires into blast furnaces. It doesn't matter what the fuel is, when fanned by a strong breeze, you can drive temps way up. Take the lowly blacksmith's forge. You take coke, coal or wood burning at un-fanned temps. of about 900-1,200F. Fan those flames with a forge and you can actually melt steel (2,500+F). Now, if you read the internet, it is absolutely flooded with dozens of engineers and 'experts' quoting maxmium flame temps for jet fuel in open air from ~1,200-1,900F give or take a few degrees, then some anti-conspiracy types quoting temps between 2,700-6,750F. A lot depends on free air vs. compressed air burn in a jet engine. What I have not read anywhere are two key points: one, the stack effect as I noted above and B, the building acted like an oven to contain the heat driving temps. up. Now, once other combustibles in the building ignited such as furnishings, furniture, clothing, plastic wiring insulation, you have an added fuel load but you also drive up the heat release rate of all fuels burning. Now, ignite some metals and you have even more heat being released into the cauldron but contained within it like a crucible. I can take a propane torch and heat a copper pipe for quit some time without melting the copper. Cut off a section of 1/2" copper, put it in a crucible and heat it with that same torch and you can melt the copper tubing. It's magic! No, it is focusing the heat back upon itself. BTW, was this fire dept. captain a metalurgist and did he conduct experients on the molten metal he encountered? How did he know it wasn't a lot of aluminum, which melts around 1,220F depending upon the alloy? How about the babbit metal in bearings in elevator hoists and motors? Who knows what all was up there? Go fish... Instead of tilting at windmills, why don't you paranoid types concern yourself with the creeps running the country trying to hand it over to worse creeps who want to kill us?

We probably had no data or experience with the high temps of burning jet fuel confined inside of a high-rise but we have data and experience with high-rise fires. Why was Building 7 the first to fall from a fire? What were the successive explosions heard on the videos. And why were there no residue tests on the debris?

I don’t doubt that science can do a fine job of analyzing these structural failures. I would just like science to have more to work with.

We probably had no data or experience with the high temps of burning jet fuel confined inside of a high-rise but we have data and experience with high-rise fires. Why was Building 7 the first to fall from a fire? What were the successive explosions heard on the videos. And why were there no residue tests on the debris?

I don’t doubt that science can do a fine job of analyzing these structural failures. I would just like science to have more to work with.

It’s not case closed.

Seems to me if TPTB wanted to find answers... they would follow through. Seeing the case is closed officially... it would appear there is something to hide.

What I do not understand is why the public does not care? Oh yeah, the polecats really do have the public's interest at heart... NOT!

Your statement that the US government is culpable, in some degree, in the wtc attack, I agree with. I believe they likely had enough intelligence info to stop it. It is simply impossible for them to have planned and executed the job without someone leaking enough to eventually bring it into the open.

You just don't get it. In these operations, only a handful of individuals get to see the big picture. The rest of the minions have their jobs to do. When the event happens its understood that you don't talk and if you do you will end up getting suicided or have a mystery collapse and end up dead. There have been numerous persons that aware of too much or made waves that have turned up dead. To name a few:

You clearly underestimate unlimited resources, think tanks, years of operational experience. The government has been up to this for a long long time and 911 was their Magnun Opus. Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean its impossible

America; first we fight for our freedom,
then we make laws to take it away.

Of course debris was whisked off because no one in thier wildest dreams thought it would matter. No science that I read even mentioned debris. Why? Because it is irrelevent.

LOL whenever there is a building collapse the debris is thoroughly studied to learn exactly why it happened and how to prevent it in the future. The architect of the damn building said that he designed it to withstand a plane crash so obviously the collapse was a surprise. It wasn't until way later that your beloved peer reviewed goons came out with the explanation. A thorough processing of the debris would have painted a clear picture, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of the exact reason ALL THREE skyscrapers went down. The site was locked down and the evidence destroyed. Don't try to play the irrelevance of the debris card, just makes you look bad.

Also, I want to point out that you never debate specific points. You just take big broad strokes and parrot words like "science" and "peer review".

America; first we fight for our freedom,
then we make laws to take it away.

LOL column 79 isn't even close to the point of damage from tower 1. This article is merely an engineer or 2 given the task of corroborating the official story and this is the only thing they could come up with. Why did the east penthouse collapse into the building? Wasn't the debris damage roughly in the center of the structure? Also, the title of the article is "How the loss of one column MAY HAVE led to the collapse of WTC7" Not "How the loss of 1 column led to the collapse of WTC7"

I'm sure columns 76-81 played a part in WTC7's global collapse, just not in the way you're thinking

America; first we fight for our freedom,
then we make laws to take it away.

LOL column 79 isn't even close to the point of damage from tower 1. This article is merely an engineer or 2 given the task of corroborating the official story and this is the only thing they could come up with. Why did the east penthouse collapse into the building? Wasn't the debris damage roughly in the center of the structure? Also, the title of the article is "How the loss of one column MAY HAVE led to the collapse of WTC7" Not "How the loss of 1 column led to the collapse of WTC7"

I'm sure columns 76-81 played a part in WTC7's global collapse, just not in the way you're thinking

An engineer or two? Articles in Structures magazine are peer reviewed by thousands of engineers world wide (don't take my word for it, RESEARCH something for yourself FOR ONCE), but thanks for exposing your level of knowledge on that matter for us. Very telling.

And BTW, the charge made was that it CANNOT happen, that's what you think lends weight to your kook ideas. It certainly CAN happen.

BTW, Mr. Science, ALL THEORIES are not facts. DUH!

MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE that last line right there!

BTW, I wonder if you have checked out the fate of some of YOUR experts after thier comments were not appreciated by the University he worked for (in other words - peer review). Suspended because your work is an embarressment? In fact, your "credentialed" experts are deserving of a whole post by themselves!

Last edited by scrogdog; 10-02-2012 at 08:18 AM.

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ― Bertrand Russell

LOL whenever there is a building collapse the debris is thoroughly studied to learn exactly why it happened and how to prevent it in the future. The architect of the damn building said that he designed it to withstand a plane crash so obviously the collapse was a surprise. It wasn't until way later that your beloved peer reviewed goons came out with the explanation. A thorough processing of the debris would have painted a clear picture, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of the exact reason ALL THREE skyscrapers went down. The site was locked down and the evidence destroyed. Don't try to play the irrelevance of the debris card, just makes you look bad.

Also, I want to point out that you never debate specific points. You just take big broad strokes and parrot words like "science" and "peer review".

Bull crapio. How about posting some support for these misguided comments about debris? I mean from the science community, not you tube.

Last edited by scrogdog; 10-02-2012 at 08:34 AM.

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ― Bertrand Russell

Science is never closed. Theories are always being debated and in some cases modified. Indeed it took quite some time for Einstien to modify Newton's work on gravity, right? And it could happen again. It never ends.

That's precisely why I say, if you could only understand, your experts are FREE TO SUBMIT PROPER SCIENCE. Maybe one will win a Nobel for thier work. But again, for reasons that I don't understand, YOU don't seem to understand that science has rules that MUST be followed.

Science can't respond until someone does that; make a white paper that follows the rules. Don't confuse that with "case closed".

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ― Bertrand Russell